Sunday, February 7, 2016

Supreme Court likely to hear new “assault weapons” ban case

This apparent contradiction between the 7th Circuit Court’s ruling in Friedman v. City of Highland Park and the 4th’s ruling in Maryland has likely provided enough contrast for the Supremes to take up the question. This, as you might imagine, has liberal gun rights opponents in a state of panic, as a ruling agreeing with the rationale cited by the 4th Circuit Court would essentially kill off any similar rifle bans around the nation.


Anonymous said...

If SCOTUS takes this case - they need to back off of the "in common use" standard and amplify the "strict scrutiny" standard for all 2A infringements...this will put further attempts to infringe away permanently.

Anonymous said...

2ND AMENDMENT FOR THE WIN: Federal Judge Rules Maryland’s Assault Weapons Ban Infringes on the Right to Bear Arms

Anonymous said...

Anyone thinking SCOTUS will rule in our favor, IMO, is delusional.

Shawn said...

We already know the Scotus won't take it and let the lower court ruling stand. And if they do they will rule in favor of the government. I have come to view literally every single judge in the United States as a modern version of Roland Freisler. So when a court views in favor of gun rights I am amazed to the point of almost being speechless. Because since I view all judges as Roland Freisler I have to assume that they all want everyone who owns a gun and fights the government judicially, especially on gun rights enemies of the government to be rounded up and then systematically exterminated.

Anonymous said...

There is no option but strict scrutiny and that was a given the moment Heller was undertaken. What was SCOTUS going to do, actually SAY the second doesn't say what it says? Riiiiight. That crap might have worked in 1900s but it ain't gonna fly in the 2000s.

What was it going to do? Say NOW that after so much effort in building Doctrine of Selective Incorporation that all of a sudden it's all worthless and tell Otis McDonald "No, it doesn't apply"? Of course not. Of course it had to say that The Second Amendment is no different ...because it isn't and that means Strict Scrutiny either holds both both -OR-NEITHER.

So who thinks the Judiciary is trying to give up STRUCTURE in order to appease democrats gun control wet dreams??? Who really thinks that?

So stop being such pansies. Stop buying the FUDDS touted sky is falling whining that the NRA pushes! We hold the Cards now, the judicial cards. Sad thing is, we always did. We were just conned into thinking we didn't.

Here's the score right now. Either they give up the gun control or they lose almost all other control-economic control itself included, by the whole Incorporation structure itself coming apart at the seams entirely. Know this -they will back off the gun control before they just give up ALL control.

Here is they KEY. Stand UP NOW. No deals! You hear that NRA? You hear THAT Fudds? Either we all agree to focus ALL gun laws on ACTUAL crimes -outside our rights- outside owning and carrying or the whole thing descends into a new war of independence. It's over. The days of ignoring crystal clear enumerations are OVER. That IS the deal. PERIOD.

NO MORE buying and selling "crimes" hemming up innocent people while murderers run amok scot free. ENOUGH! No more gun bans, on ownership production or sale while ACTUAL robbers get slaps on the wrist for ACTUAL robberies. No more collective punishment for individual action.

It's time the ADULTS tell the petulant tantrum throwing gun control children to sit in the corner. Their Trumper tantrums and their permission slips are worthless. They don't have the authority to claim permission slip power. UNLESS of course those peeps want to openly support BIBLE CARRY PERMITS. That's what Incorporation and strict scrutiny FORCED! It is one standard or the other. Now, they have to choose.

So who is going to openly argue Bible Book carry permits? Hmmmmm? That IS our silver bullet, folks. Load it up and shoot it!!!

Anonymous said...

Of course "machine guns" are not in "common use." They have been driven to near-extinction in the private sector by strict gun laws... Which are evidently justified by the prevalence of common use.

Bad Cyborg said...

"Supreme Court likely to hear new 'assault weapons' ban case"

I disagree. All they HAVE to do is nothing. If they do not grant cert then the ruling stands - it just does not have to be considered by any other court. If I understand correctly, no ruling automatically becomes precedent and no precedent is, necessarily, binding on any court. Just as lawyers can pick and choose in their briefs to a judge, judges can pick and choose which precedents presented to accept. Ultimately, it comes down to the will of a person. Heck, I have read briefs where DISSENTING opinions were presented and cited by the judge (or panel of judges) in support of their decision. In this instance, I would expect the minority dissenting opinion will be cited in any case involving strict scrutiny - ESPECIALLY if SCOTUS refuses to settle the discrepancy between the 7th and 4th circuits' rulings.

Nope. SCOTUS doesn't HAVE to do a damned thing.

Anonymous said...

Back Ning entire classes of arms is not permissible. This SCOTUS already admitted.
Besides, here is the ultimate smack down for -in common use- ummmm these supposed "smart guns" could NEVER be protected under a "in common use" scope.

The same thing that dooms the select fire ban upholds their goal to move newly produced arms to "smart" technology.

In common use is a delay to tactic to get just one more election, just just just one more election out of gun control. It is akin to "within the home" it's a,stalling tactic, nothing more.

Anonymous said...

Why should this change anything? DC, Chicago, all of Calif. have all completely ignored "Heller" and gotten away with it. What makes you think that anyone in the current junta CARES what the "nine" say?----Ray